And here we go.. limited strike turns into more extended one, then it turns into a full scale war... then Russia gets involved against us and we'll have a full fledged WW 3. Way to go, Obama -- when at this point there are NO US INTERESTS involved, but let's have a little war to distract for Obama's problems like Benghazi, the IRS scandal of targeting conservative groups, who knows what is really going on with the NSA, the Obamacare coming disaster and so on...

I think the US might want to take a look at all the warships Russia in bringing in to Syria. And I’m sure they are not there for a Syrian Boat Show.
Once the first missile is fired, the outcome cannot be certain.

7
posted on 09/07/2013 8:47:30 PM PDT
by tennmountainman
(Stop Worrying And Just Learn To Love The Bomb!)

In an interview with The Hill, former congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that should President Obama green-light an air strike in Syria, the U.S. military would become Al Qaeda’s air force.

This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’  that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with, Kucinich said, as quoted in The Hill.

President Vladimir Putin gave warning that Russia would stand with Syria if America launches military strikes against the country.

Ending the summit, Mr Putin said that world opinion was firmly against US-led intervention, adding that Russia would take Syria’s side. “Will we help Syria? We will,” he said. “We are already helping, we send arms.”

...maybe our military leaders will make things more fair by shortening the stronger side a bit to keep things from getting boring there. Political figureheads lacking military leadership experience aside for a moment, it might all make a little more sense. That, and Iran loses some major support (ports and other) for its nuclear buildup. In the future, Syrian cities might be nice, quiet ranch lands.

10
posted on 09/07/2013 8:57:12 PM PDT
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)

Mission creep: is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.[1] Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations,

The Left is seeking a nuclear diversion from the failures of the administration

It's not the left this time. They are against this adventure as much as the right is. This war is being sought by Obama and Kerry, and to a lesser extent by the neocon Republicans. No one else wants it.

16
posted on 09/07/2013 9:11:04 PM PDT
by Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)

But the left would be organizing protests with 100,000 anti-war protestors, if a Republican president would want to get involved, while they are silent to supportive of Obama doing it. Hypocrisy of the left.

Why was there no call for military response in April? Wilson asked Secretary of State John Kerry during the hearing. Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals; the failure of Obamacare enforcement; the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote? Again, why was there no call for military response four months ago when the presidents red line was crossed?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.